Skip to main content

iRubric: Printmaking I: Drypoint (Rev3/CTP) rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Printmaking I: Drypoint (Rev3/CTP) 
Printmaking I: Drypoint (Rev3/CTP)
Students develop a series of drawings that they develop into a drypoint plate. Students print a variable edition of 5 prints. The prints are presented in a critique format at the end of the project.
Rubric Code: M248395
By dijane540
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Arts and Design  
Type: Assessment  
Grade Levels: 9-12

Powered by iRubric Drypoint Prints
  Excellent:

100

(N/A)

Strong

90

(N/A)

Good

80

(N/A)

Weak

70

(N/A)

Poor

60

(N/A)

Original Work, Ideas, Sketches

1/6th
Excellent:

-The sketches and final work clearly demonstrate a personal vision, individual mark-making, and innovative ideas and/or risk-
taking.
-The work demonstrates a distinct integration of the printmaking technique and the project concept.
Strong

- The sketches and final work generally demonstrate original and innovative ideas, with some personalization.
-The work demonstrates a general integration of the printmaking technique and the project concept.
Good

- The sketches and final work demonstrates attempts at originality
- Attempts at innovation
with materials and techniques seem to be emerging.
-The work demonstrates limited integration of the printmaking technique and the student's concept.
Weak

- An idea behind the work is presented, but the ideas in the work are unoriginal or rely
mostly on appropriation.
- The work demonstrates limited signs integration of the printmaking technique and the student's concept.
Poor

- An idea behind the work may be presented, but the work comprises trite or simplistic
solutions that are poorly executed.
- The work does not demonstrate any integration of the printmaking technique and the student's concept.
Problem Solving & Proofs

1/6th
Excellent:

- Student started with more than 3 original composition ideas
- Student extensively refined selected idea(s) through the project (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), showing much growth.
- The student consistently sought to troubleshoot and solve any technical or design problems.
- Student showed consistent time management.
Strong

- Student started with 3 original composition ideas
- Student refined the selected idea through the project (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), showing some growth.
- The student frequently sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
- Student showed frequent time management.
Good

- Student started with 2+ original composition ideas
- Student refined original idea (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), but the idea could still benefit from more development.
- The student sometimes sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
- Student showed some time management.
Weak

- Student only slightly altered original composition idea (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), but the ideas are mostly repetitive.
- The student sometimes sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
- Student showed limited time management.
Poor

-Overall, the work shows no indication of growth or transformation.
- The ideas in the project do not show development.
- The student rarely sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
- Student negligible time management.
Technical, Craftsmanship, Quality

1/6th
Excellent:

-The work is technically excellent.
-All 5 prints are turned in and all 5 are of outstanding quality.
- All parts of the image are clear and the borders are clean on the BAT.
- Plate tone is intentional.
- 3 Color Trial Proofs of excellent quality.
- Curation is invisible.
- All of the prints are titled, signed/dated, and labeled in pencil.
Strong

-The work is technically strong.
- All 5 prints in the edition are turned in.
- Most parts of the image are clear and the borders are clean on the BAT.
- Plate tone is generally consistent and intentional.
- The 3 CTP prints are of very good quality.
- Curation is somewhat invisible.
Good

-The work demonstrates developing technical competence and use of materials and media.
- All 5 prints in the edition are turned in. 3 of the prints are good quality.
- BAT has some inconsistencies and may not be entirely intentional.
- There is particular variation in inking and/or registration in CTP's.
- Prints have some curation, but could benefit from additional curation.
- Prints are lacking one of the following: title, signature, label.
Weak

- The work demonstrates marginal technical competence.
- Inking is not consistent, registration is inconsistent, edges are dirty on BAT.
- Prints may have stray marks or fingerprints.
- Automatic if 4 or fewer prints turned in.
- No curation evidence.
- Prints are lacking more than one of the following: titled, signed/dated, numbered, in pencil.
Poor

-The work is generally inept; use of materials and media lacks skill or technical
competence.
- The prints are messy, damaged or smeared.
- Automatic if 3 or fewer prints turned in.
Composition & Design

1/6th
Excellent:

-The work exhibits well-informed decision- making and composition shows intention.
-The prints display an imaginative articulation
of the elements and principles of design.
- Work shows exceptional attention to line quality and range of textures.
- Prints show dynamic representation, color, and placement of subject.
Strong

-The work generally demonstrates imaginative ideas and effective manipulation of the elements and principles of design.
- Work shows strong attention to line quality and range of textures.
- Prints show some consideration the representation, color, and placement of subject.
Good

-Some decision making and compositional intention are evident.
-Some imaginative ideas about the use of the elements and principles of design appear to be
emerging.
- Work shows some attention to line quality and range of textures.
- Prints show more attention only to representation, color, or placement of subject.
Weak

-Intention is not clear.
-The work relies heavily on unoriginal ideas and lacks invention or imaginative use of the
elements and principles of design.
- Line quality or texture range is repetitive with little variation.
- Consideration of representation, color, or placement of subject seems muddled.
Poor

-The work appears to be unconsidered and to lack discernible intention.
-The work lacks originality or imagination.
- Variation in line and/or textures is poor or simplistic.
- Representation, color, or placement of subject appear unconsidered.
Cooperation & Clean-up

1/6th
Excellent:

- The student is always prompt and on task in the studio & follows the directions for the project the first time they are given.
-Student consistently cleans up their work area in a timely fashion.
- The student consistently respects classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student consistently offers constructive critiques to peers.
Strong

- The student is almost always on task, and follows directions for the project.
- Student cleans up his/her work area in a timely fashion, with minimal reminders.
- The student frequently respects classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student usually offers constructive critiques to peers.
Good

-The student's participation does not reflect one of the following: being on time, being on task, following directions for the project, and cleaning up his/her work area in a timely fashion.
- The student generally respects classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student could offer additional constructive critiques to peers.
Weak

- The student is frequently late, off task in the studio, may not follow directions, or delays cleanup.
- The student sometimes shows respect for classmates.
-The student rarely offers constructive critiques.
Poor

- The student does not follow directions, or refuses to participate in the project fully.
- Student may misuse, waste or destroy art materials carelessly.
- Student may leave a mess.
- The student may rarely show respect for classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student offers destructive critique or does not participate in critiques.
Presentation & Reflection

1/6th
Excellent:

-Critique presentation reflects project's process, strengths, and weaknesses.
-Student expresses their goals for their edition
- Student expresses their plans for improving in future projects.
- Student frequently discusses work of peers.
Strong

-Critique presentation does not reflect one of the following: process, strengths, weaknesses,
expression of project goals, reflection on future plans.
- Student sometimes discusses work of peers.
Good

-Critique presentation does not reflect more than one of the following: process, strengths, weaknesses,
expression of project goals, reflection on future plans.
- Student discusses one peer work.
Weak

Student's critique presentation does not articulate their project goals, they are not enthusiastic about their work, and/or are not responsive to constructive criticism.
- Student does not discuss peer work.
Poor

Student is unorganized, unprepared, and unresponsive to the criticism. Student seemed to make up their presentation on the spot.



Keywords:
  • Visual Arts


Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.

n52